The Company You Keep
by JoyWe often hear from critics that they can safely label ID to be warmed-over Creationism because leaders of the ID 'Movement' are religious believers who sometimes speak about ID to religious audiences in terms of God and creation. In other words, ID can be judged by the company its promoters keep.
So I thought it was interesting that NCSE's Eugenie Scott is keeping some illustrious company herself. Scott will be speaking at The Atheist Alliance International convention and fund raiser at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Arlington, Virginia this September. Also on the roster are Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, along with a bevy of lesser known New Atheists and Brights.
Of course I don't have any problems with evangelical atheists forming foundations, groups, alliances and such, nor with them holding conventions at which they can sell their books, enliven their troops, and back-slap each other over dry martinis and oysters on the half-shell. And I would fully expect Eugenie's speech to whip up the troops about the threat ID presents to the atheist stranglehold on public education for purposes of ideological indoctrination. That is her job, after all.
I can't wait to see video of her speech, or a transcript. Hope they'll be made available shortly after the event. Heck, if I were independently wealthy I'd be sorely tempted to attend the event myself just to *be* a fly on the wall!
June 26th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Joy, Joy, so much misinformation!
It might actually have something to do with the fact that, as creationists have pointed out, IDisms anti-evolutionary arguments are simply recycled versions of arguments creationists have been making for decades. It might also have something to do with the Wedge Document, and the involvement of prominent "cdesign proponentsists" in the first creationist, then IDist textbook, OPaP. IOW, Joy, the good ole creationist tactic of picking out one line of evidence for ridicule, and ignoring all the other lines of evidence which point the exact same way, doesn't work.
Strange, MikeGene doesn't seem to have a problem with mainstream evolutionary explanations for the development of the diversity of life over the last couple of billion years; is he an atheist? In fact, MikeGene doesn't think IDism is science, or should be taught in public schools; he must be an atheist to support that stranglehold on public education!
Comment by Aagcobb — June 26, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Aagcobb:
LOL!!! Aag, you're smarter than this! Though I do thank you for making my point so succinctly with the first post. Now… where is that "misinformation" again?
I don't know it it has occurred to you yet in your time on this forum, but I am not Mike Gene. I also have no problem with mainstream evolutionary explanations being taught - they are mainstream, after all. I object to them being taught as some kind of exclusive done deal. And I have a problem with ANY science that must rely upon courts of law to impose a certain theoretic while excluding criticisms of its weaknesses and highlighting of holes that still need to be explained.
It is my opinion that a theory that cannot stand on its own - that needs censorship in science and laws against pointed questions in science education - is unworthy of the label of science. What Mike Gene believes is entirely irrelevant to that opinion.
Comment by Joy — June 26, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Hi Joy,
Thanks for your opinion. Its my opinion that mainstream evolutionary theory does stand quite well on its own, and it is perfectly appropriate to prevent religious groups from hijacking public schools to teach their religious beliefs as science. Its not the fault of evolutionary theory that the fact that humans are related by common descent to the rest of life is virulently opposed by a large religious faction. If they were still as passionate about an earth centered universe as they are about creationism, I wouldn't view gravitational theories as "unworthy of the label of science" because suits had to be brought to keep crackpot notions from being taught in public schools as science.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 26, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Aagcobb:
The creation approach is one of necessity as that approach rules out mainstream evolution as well as origins. I do not agree that creationists are single minded in their criticism. The True Origin website takes on a broad array of topics for example. They do have a bigger burden of evidence than IDists though. In fact the YEC version has the added burden of young age. IDists need only link intelligent design to one single facet of natural history. If they do that at point of origins, as many do, then they are free to go along with the rest of the package and still maintain a design inference. In case it is not crystal clear, this would mean ignoring other lines of evidence because they are not necessariliy in dispute. In fact it can be a prerequisite to maintaining intellectual integrity. Why argue against long ages or evolution if the ID proponent believes in them? It is simply not necessary to make a full-fledged frontal assault to establish ID. OTOH, we might wonder about the motives of those who continually stereotype with discredited arguments against ID.
Comment by Bradford — June 26, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Is he? He always reminds me of my fellow lawyers here in Holland who are nothing but bluster and hollow rhetoric.
Comment by Jean — June 26, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Jean:
It's considered a symptom of insanity to think that everybody else is insane except onself.:lol:
Comment by Raevmo — June 26, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Raevmo, who mentioned insanity?
Comment by Bradford — June 26, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I think Aagcobb makes a fair point. If it were the case that IDists are labeled creationists only because of their appearance at religious conferences"”that would be unfair. However the wedge document, the vice strategy, and the fatuous OPaP global search-and-replace provide a lot more evidence that can be used to substantiate the charge. Regardless of whether the charge is accurate I would argue that it is not true that it is based solely or even to a great extent on the company IDists keep. The Wedge document is, in my opinion, the mother of all smoking guns.
Bradford:
I don't understand your response. I am also sympathetic to Aagcobb's comment about the use of selective evidence. You seem to be supporting that approach, if I read you correctly. I have seen that approach from YECs over and over again: some isolated anomaly or obvious error in radiometric dating is used to prove its total unreliability, while the thousands of times it is shown to be consistent across isotopes and consistent with non radiometric dating methods is ignored.
Comment by David Heddle — June 26, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Gee Bradford, don't you see the analogy between
and
Someone, I believe it was Hardy (of the Hardy-Weinberg law by the way), once said something along the lines of: good mathematicians can see analogies between theorems, great mathematicians can see analogies between analogies.
Comment by Raevmo — June 26, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Oops, turns out it was probably Banach instead of Hardy who said that about analogies.
Comment by Raevmo — June 26, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Where did I suggest there is no critic who has a valid point? Aagcobb just tends to be all smoke and mirrors in general. Even when he does have valid points, they drown in his generalisations and ad hominems. How you get from that to "everybody is crazy except me" is, well, beyond me.
Comment by Jean — June 26, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Aagcobb:
Scarecrow argument. No one here has advocated the hijacking of public schools to teach religious beliefs as science, and you know that perfectly well. That's illegal, remember?
Comment by Joy — June 26, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I made the connection but I must say that the following is not only sane but also not hollow bluster;
Comment by WedgeHead — June 26, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
…though, come to think of it, PZ Myers has advocated arresting (and presumably charging and prosecuting) parents who choose not to enroll their children in public schools, for the crime of child abuse. Richard Dawkins has advocated making it illegal for parents to teach their religion to their children altogether.
Just no accounting for some folks, it seems.
Comment by Joy — June 26, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Hi Joy,
It looks like the thread is starting off fairly balanced, so I will refrain from pontificating too much. It isn't the company they keep, it is the words they say. About a year ago Dembski posted this on Uncommon Descent…
link
After, I posted a comment in Talk.origins newsgroup pointing out the significance of such a statement, Dembski added a qualifying parenthetical about insignificant ID alternatives. However, it should be obvious to everyone this is what Dembski believes and is his motivation.
And my comment wouldn't be complete without Dr. Well's stirring…
link
This is the Wedge Document in a nut shell. Both of these quotes occurred after the Dover trial. Face it, the ID Movement hasn't gotten the message that this is a post-wedge world. ID Science may, and probably will, march on. Everyone will be in for a rude awaking whenever quantum physicists solve their big mystery.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 26, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Why? My position is that intelligent design can be inferred at the origin of life and I have cited repeatedly the relevant cellular mechanisms I believe substantiate my position. You can disagree with my position but why should I have to argue for a young earth as many creationists do and why should I have to argue against the plausibility of adapative environmental responses if that is not my position? Creationists are attempting to match-up evidence to Genesis. I'm attempting to match evidence to design or design that is intelligently generated. I understand Aagcobb and others. They are being deliberately obtuse in claiming to not understand the difference between two distinctly different positions and the differing evidence needed to substantiate them.
The Wedge thing is getting old and outdated. For every DI fellow there are dozens of informed and passionate IDists out there and for every one of them there are thousands of ID adherents who could care less about the Wedge. The Wedge was a present on a silver platter for ID critics. It is gist for propaganda. It is not worth much more than that.
Comment by Bradford — June 26, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
TP:
And that is supposed to mean… what - exactly - to me? See, other people's beliefs and motivations are only important when they're busy attempting to force their beliefs onto me. I think I already tried explaining this to you once already.
Thus I don't care what Bill Dembski believes, any more than I care what PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins believe. I fully expect them to not care what I believe too, tit for tat on that level. No internet pseud's beliefs mean anything significant to my life in time, who do not have any power over me or power to in some way penalize me for not believing as they do.
They can leave me the hell alone, as I do them. The #1 benefit of liberty.
Truth is (pay attention, this is the prestige talking) the Wedgies didn't stand a chance in the first place. The gig was up the moment they were impolitic enough to advertise it. At that point, it just became somewhat pitiful for its desperation.
Slight of mind works just like sleight of hand - in fact, they're inseparable. I do know a little about that stuff.
The 'New Atheist' crew isn't even that smart. They like to pretend they're the World's Greatest Intellects, but they're completely dismissible and easily fooled by their own thirst for power. After a century and a half of "orthodox" hegemony, they still haven't figured out why hardly anyone outside acolyte wannabes will buy tickets to see them perform. Their recent abandonment of science says it all. All that's left is their inevitable ignoble demise.
What anyone believes about gods/God or no gods/God has nothing to do with what's real. People who waste their lives on grand political schemes to control other people's minds are… well, pitiful if you can spare the emotion. Otherwise they're just dismissible. Temporary successes (usually instilled and maintained by fear) always fall to reality in the end. Life goes on.
There is more to reality than either 'side' is willing to acknowledge. Doesn't matter to what's real. For some unfathomable reason you seem to have understood - or at least latched onto - a few of the things I've said over the years, a refreshing change from either gathering insults or going over everybody's head. That's neat. Open minds can be fun!
…but it doesn't matter what you or I believe either. Once you get to that realization, the dueling metaphysics begins to look just like a cheap sideshow. If there's a God, it's wonderful that He allows us to apprehend even our tiny portion of reality. If there is no God, we're just pond scum with big egos who don't count at all. Now that you've glimpsed a hint of the 'more' that's going on, why do you care what other people choose to believe about it?
Comment by Joy — June 26, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Hi Joy,
True. Yet this is a convention of extremists and there seems to be a political agenda associated with it.
I'm truly disappointed in Scott. When I first saw this, I held out hope that she was going into the lion's den to argue that science/evolution should not be conflated with atheism. But since the title of her talk is, ""Who Pulled the Stake Out? The Resurgence of Young Earth Creationism," it's clear she is whipping up the troops and the troops are extremists who hate religion.
Scott's decision to speak at this convention of extremists is very interesting. What does she get from it? Does she really need to convince this crowd about the threatiness of creationism?
Comment by MikeGene — June 26, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Hi Joy,
I appreciate your response. I agree with most of it. Therefore, I can't think of much to say in response with one possible exception…
If the Discovery Institute isn't a threat, then the NCSE is even less of a threat.
I will go into that in detail with my reaction to MikeGene's comment.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 26, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I wouldn't. I would expect you to support the clear scientific evidence that points to an old Earth and the long progress of evolutionary change. I would expect you to distinctly distance yourself from those who reject, mangle or misrepresent the scientific evidence.
Because this evidence is so strong, I would expect these foundational issues to be more important than what are somewhat speculative ideas about the origin of life. For how can you credibly argue your position when the evidence of origins is so clearly tied up in these other issues and when the very foundation of science is undermined?
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Hi Zachriel,
You write:
Do I sense a double-standard here? Richard Dawkins argues that a religious upbringing is child abuse. To do so, one must reject, mangle or misrepresent the scientific evidence. Can you thus provide a list of scientists who have publicly distanced themselves from Dawkins' pseudoscience?
Come to think of it Zachriel, you have made zero effort to distance yourself from Myers extremism and authoritarian wishes. Is this supposed to mean something?
Comment by MikeGene — June 26, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Hi TP,
Goodie! I should have a short window of opportunity tonight for replying.
Comment by MikeGene — June 26, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Hi Mike,
Here is the first thing visitors see when they go to the web site…
link
You may not like their agenda, but it sure isn't hidden. Why in the world are you surprised and disappointed that Scott is going to talk about the primary STATED mission of the NCSE?
Mike, I know it may be hard to believe, but there are a lot of people out there willing to accept that people have the right to their own beliefs and opinions.
And some of these people would be willing to consider the SCIENCE of ID if it was presented without the religious presumption.
This is what was presented at Dover…
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera."
This is what the NCSE is fighting against.
Your "small voice" is "…being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
And, Mike, both sides are equally loud in shouting their advocacy.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 26, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Huh? Bradford asked a specific question. "You can disagree with my position but why should I have to argue for a young earth as many creationists do and why should I have to argue against the plausibility of adapative environmental responses if that is not my position?
The answer is he shouldn't. Quite the contrary. If he is an active participant in a discussion, then he should not quietly acquiesce to mangled or false scientific assertions.
Gee whiz. IDers can't even agree on common descent, which is one of the most fundamental observed patterns in biology.
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Mike:
Of course there is. Which would be no more interesting than the local Quaker meeting house where little old ladies and men sit about and reason peace… except for the fact that they all - including and especially Eugenie - pretend to speak for science rather than atheism when they're talking to Mom and Pop America.
Of course, DHS seems to think all that Quaker peace talk is far more of a threat to National Security. That's why the FBI pays probably intelligent people to infiltrate them as threats to the Republic. What is wrong with this picture?
I'm not disappointed. To be disappointed I'd have had to believe she had two real brain cells to rub together in the first place (and I didn't). I'm all for it. Nothing will end this little sideshow faster than for overweaning pride to fall foolishly on its own sword. They'll defeat themselves.
That's why I'd love to be a fly on that wall, as this is the stuff of which footnotes to history are made. It doesn't matter how many great historians analyze the fall of Rome - and assign it to the obsession of the ruling class with their own decadent conceits while the people drifted away - the decadent and conceited never learn.
They cannot defeat religion. No human or group of humans can.
She gets paid to play. Convincing them isn't what the convention is about, and that's not why Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are doing there either. They are being paid to play as well, and those who pay are just budgeting themselves "convention" funds out of the general revenues they get from far-flung supporters who can't afford such conceits. It's a party of those at the top of this particular food chain. We all know how that works.
I've got conference centers right here in my neighborhood for Baptists (SBC), Presbyterians (had a funeral last week, Ruth was a long-time board member of the children's home we've raised money for) and Methodists. That's mostly a food chain pecking order situation too, with all of 'em.
…but very few of them (none that I can name off the top of my head) pretend in public to be anything but what they are. That's what dooms Eugenie's efforts. She's a liar about what it is she's promoting. People generally don't like liars.
Comment by Joy — June 26, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Hi TP,
You continue to disappoint. What's with the "you might not like their agenda" bit? This is clear, yet subtle, unethical spin on your part, where you are trying to plant the thought that I don't like the NCSE working to keep creationism or ID out of the public schools.
As for disappointed, your reply is dysfunctional. I'm not interested in any stated mission. Didn't you read the questions at the end of my reply? Did you forget that I previously used Eugenie Scott as a lead example of Type A critics and she is now about inciting a crowd of Type C critics, people who spew hate and think religious parents are child abusers. Y'know, Richard Dawkins makes essentially the same science and God arguments that are made by many leaders in the ID movement. and Eugenie Scott has never criticized Dawkins for such positions and advocacy. On the contrary, she shares the stage with Dawkins (and Harris and Hitchens).
I'm sorry, but I am indeed disappointed. In fact, I hope to repost my ID critic typology with a new addendum later on in the summer.
Yes, I am beginning to find this difficult to believe as far as the critics are concerned.
My experience teaches me that this would be a very small population. In fact, the same experience teaches me that the vast majority of critics hear "God" when "˜ID' is spoken or written, so the presumption is often injected into the analysis by "these people." Just because we are in the post-wedge world does not mean most critics no longer view everything through a wedge-centric prism.
Comment by MikeGene — June 26, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Hi Joy,
What is interesting is that these are the very criticisms Scott et al. make about Dembski and Behe. Ironically, I believe the NCSE types criticized Dembski and/or Behe for the sharing the stage with YECers or religious apologists (I don't archive such accusations, I just seem to recall something like this). The symmetry is amazing.
I'm disappointed because I suppose I am resisting giving in to the final stages of cynicism, as I was willing to believe Scott was a genuine type A critic and I must confess that I'm wondering if there is egg on my face for that one.
The post-wedge world is indeed eye-opening and one has to wonder how much of all that pre-Dover Trojan Horse criticism was fueled by projection.
Comment by MikeGene — June 26, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
TP,
You quote Wells as saying:
This is his opinion, that what is presented as pure science by many of these academics is actually fueled by other motives. For some reason, you seem to consider that there is something wrong with this statement. You even call it a wedge type statement. Yet I don't see you questioning the motives of the other side. What, and you don't think an atheist has motives to come up with a coherent worldview for himself? Why else did Dawkins say Darwin provided the way for him to be intellectually fulfilled?
Comment by onething — June 26, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Mike:
Ah, but the sheer hypocrisy of it all is why we can rightfully point it out, isn't it? There's never a shortage of hypocrites in this world. Not all of them claim to speak for God.
None of them are really type A's. That's not cynicism, it's simple reality. Everyone's invested in something metaphysical, and those invested in this particular dueling metaphysics sideshow are no different. Even those few who claim they can accept a version of ID that's not metaphysical (acknowledging the increasing weaknesses of the NDS in light of new and incoming evidence that belies it) are being less than forthright. Their primary concern is still what other people believe about metaphysical things.
Maybe it takes a trojan to recognize a horse, eh? §;o)
Comment by Joy — June 26, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Hi Mike,
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this one. Maybe even applaud. That has got to have been one of the toughest situations where you employed your shield bashing technique I have seen to date. Let's look at NCSE's second "We provide" bullet again. The NSCE provides…
"Background to the fundamentally creationist and anti-evolution movement known as "Intelligent Design"
Yes, Mike, I think you might not like that the NCSE equates ID with creationism and anti-evolution.
That is your interpretation. Here is Eugenie Scott's version…
"In the last few years, the "intelligent design" creationists have been in the spotlight of the press and media, somewhat eclipsing the traditional "young earth" creationists. But the YECs have neither gone away nor diminished in influence: at NCSE, we are acutely aware that the larger and actually more influential creationist movement remains the one founded by Henry M. Morris. The opening of the new multi-million dollar Answers in Genesis museum only underscores this fact. A talk at the annual meeting of American Atheists Interntaional." link
As for your questions at the end. I treated them as retorical. I find is difficult to understand why people knowingly engage in Group Think, but they do. That is why I communicate with people who disagree with me. It keeps me on my toes.
Which is why I look at things through the NOMA/OMA catagorization. Yes, Richard Dawkins is promoting a single OMA truth, just like YECers. If you are disappointed with Eugine Scott, shouldn't you also be disappointed with ID Movement leaders that openly embrace YECers? IMO, Joy has that part right, a pox on both houses.
I wrote…"Mike, I know it may be hard to believe, but there are a lot of people out there willing to accept that people have the right to their own beliefs and opinions."
You replied…
While I am obviously a critic of the ID Movement, do you consider me a critic that isn't open to the possibility of ID Science having some merit?
As far as the ID Movement is concerned, nothing has changed but the banners and the terminology. Dr. Well did his "be afraid, Very afraid" pronouncement well after Dover.
When I hear, "Intelligent Designer" I think the person is talking about God, especially when they balk at the concept that the standard definition of "Intelligence" includes the "ability to learn".
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 26, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Hi Onething,
But you forgot the part about how Darwinists should "…be afraid. Very afraid."
That is Dr. Wells' opinion too. It may come as a surprise to you, but I understand the arguments for the wedge document. Have you read it? Do you disagree with its intent? link to Wedge Document
Have you forgotten, I am a self-described atheist?
What is there to question when it is spelled out in black and white?
What I am questioning is the suggestion that "ID" isn't about religion. IMO, the ID MOVEMENT is inherently religious.
I have been searching for an ID model long and hard enough that I have put together one myself. The only other model I have seen is Salvador's YEC model.
I know the Atheist's model.
Do you have an ID model?
I will gladly do a three-way compare and contrast of the three models (ID, RM+NS and mine) but the only other ID model I have presumes God exists by fiat.
And, BTW, I have been questioning Atheists about my quantum/retrocausality model.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 26, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
TP to Mike:
ID can embrace anyone who cares to stand with them, and so can Evangelical Atheists. I fail to see what your problem with that is, since none of it is particularly relevant to what's true. No matter what turns out to be true.
What is so difficult with accepting people as they come? Or, if they're so unacceptable, taking an honest stand against them? You're a puzzlement, for sure.
…without even recognizing that the "ability to learn" that you require for the definition *is* evolution. I should have thought that would be obvious to you by now.
Comment by Joy — June 26, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
So, are you very afraid? Of what?
Comment by WedgeHead — June 26, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Hi TP,
Ah, but this is your typical way of tap-dancing around my points. You chose the word "agenda", TP. So what is the "agenda" of the NCSE? I'd say it is found in the introductory sentences of your link:
You then try to smear me by implying that I don't agree with this agenda. When I call you on this, instead of retracting and apologizing, you dig in your heals and try to cover your tracks by cherry-picking one of the later bullet points as if that is the agenda of the NCSE. You then attempt to entrench this obfuscation by lashing out at me, trying to distract attention toward my supposed "shield bashing" (whatever that is supposed to be).
TT readers should remember that for the last year-or-so, I have treated TP with respect and kindness, yet note how he repays.
I suppose none of this matters all that much TP, but since you like to posture as someone who constantly passes judgment on me, you should know that I don't recognize your lofty position nor do I think you behave ethically. And I'm being polite.
I'm not sure what to think about you anymore, TP. It has recently become clear that you embrace a wedge-centric approach and I suspect your supposed interest in "ID Science" is just a gimmick that serves your wedge-centrism.
Wrong. A federal judge has ruled that you cannot teach ID and the ruling was so strong that it caused other districts to drop their more mild "teach the controversy" agenda like a hot potato. That is all that matters.
Hey, and this takes us back to Scott and her talk to the fundamentalist atheists. Can you explain what the fuss about some creationist museum has to do with keeping evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out?
Comment by MikeGene — June 26, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Hi Joy,
If you and I had the same thoughts we wouldn't be two different people, now would we? (throw that one at Keiths in one of your dualing metaphysics threads).
How about me?
What about it Mike? Are you ready to embrace me and my quantum/retrocausality hypothesis as an official ID Front Loading position yet?
IMO, you and I have some different opinions as to where potential threats are coming from. But, for the most part, I think we have to strain to get into hard disagreements.
Do you see how easy that was? You didn't "balk" at the definition. (Of course you and I have been over this before).
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 26, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Yes that is appalling and sickening rhetoric.
At the same time, it is disgraceful that the Darwinists are peddling their fundamentalist atheism on the dime of the (largely) religious public.
Comment by mcromer — June 26, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
I'll echo that Wedgehead. Dr. Wells has no power. His influence is slight. The power lies with mainstream evolutionists. They control the money, the schools, national and international science organizations and for the most part government policies in the USA and abroad. So why the pretense about a powerful Wedge conspiracy? The effective wedge lies with ID critics. They are the ones using private and public funds to investigate the evolutionary origin of that which they despise. They are the ones dominating library shelves and bookstores with money makers. But the sky is falling because of a Wedge document.:roll:
Comment by Bradford — June 26, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Hi TP,
Such hypocrisy. For months, you have preached the importance of thinking for ourselves, yet here you are, a mere few weeks after rolling out your model, demanding that others "embrace" you and it? Earlier I told you that I would prefer to chew on it and process your ideas independently, and on my own schedule, for after all, I have plenty of my own ideas to toy with and am not in need of some help here. As we can see, you really don't appreciate independent thinking after all. You want us all to think like you do. And if we don't, you'll pull out The Wedge to explain it, because after all, only The Wedge could possibly explain why it is that people do not immediately embrace the Model of the Thought Provoker.
Comment by MikeGene — June 26, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
The Wall Street Journal wrote about a convention of psychologists which defined intelligence among other things. I saved the quote because it is a more encompassing and realistic definition that fits the conception most of us have about the word. From a group of 52 psychologists, WSJ, 12/13/94:
"Intelligence exists as a very general mental capability involving ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex
ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience."
Comment by Bradford — June 26, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Mike Gene said:
Is Dawkins making a scientific argument that a religious upbringing is child abuse? No. "Child abuse" is a legal and social concept and it's defined by law and custom, not science. So your argument is pathetically weak. If that's the best you can come up with against Dawkins I'm sure he won't be losing sleep over your foam-rubber arrows.
Here's why Eugenie Scott might appear at a conference of atheists — atheism, unlike most of the belief system that it competes with, is perfectly compatible with science, although science doesn't necessarily imply atheism. I imagine if there was a large movement of Deists who were battling YECs, Scott would be happy to address them as well.
Comment by mtraven — June 26, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Hi Mike,
I'm in too good of a mood to do the male chest-thumping routine. If it is an apology you want, then I apologize. I made a poor word choice. I was obviously mistaken when I implied that you might not approve of NCSE's "agenda".
Don't be polite on my account. I am a big boy. I can take it. However, what you take as me passing judgment is my attempt at challenging you in a positive way.
Personally, I like to be challenged. I have come to understand that not everyone has the same attitude about this as I do, but I still think a little challenge is good for most people.
If you want to think of me as a lofty, arrogant atheist, that's ok too.
I would be curious as to what you think I have done that is unethical. Not that I couldn't accept the possibility, but I tend to want to keep a check on my ethics from other people's perspective.
You might be right (even I don't know for sure) but with Joy's and Rodger Penrose's help I have put together a good-sounding ID proposal that just falls short of supporting the existence of God without precluding the existence of God. I think will only improve with additional details.
Actually, I have been working on this model before I got here. One of my first posts was an extremely rough and poor draft. Even so, Joy recognized I was on the right track. As far as I am concerned this is more Joy's model than mine. Actually, I had hoped it would become Telic Thought's model in general. But that isn't going to happen without your say-so.
If this is a ploy on my part, I suggest it is a damn good one. Because it shouldn't matter what my motives are science is science and we should follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Are we doing science are aren't we?
If you want me to leave Telic Thoughts, say the word and I am gone.
(and, yes, I am challenging you to face your own convictions, consider it a parting gift)
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 26, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Bradford:
Keep up the ludicrous lies, I don't think even you can believe them.
FYI, the Discovery Institute has a budget of around $4million, is funded by crazed theocratic billionaire, and of course is only the tip of an iceberg composed of a vast network of fundamentalist morons. These morons have also been the key voting block behind our current moronic president, and as such wield enormous political clout. Did you read about the fruitcake Bush nominated to be surgeon general? Or the even loonier guy he nominated as family-planning chief? Etc, etc, etc, read "The Republican War on Science" for more. The right-wing religious assault on science has enormous power and influence at the highest levels of government.
In contrast, the NCSE has a budget of around 500K, and is supported by individuals, and represents a far less coordinated body of people who believe in science, reason, and modernity in general. The Skeptics society and similar groups have zero political power. Fortunately these people are starting to get a little bit better organized to combat the morons.
Yes, they control the all-powerful "international science organizations", because it's pretty hard to be influential in a science organization when you don't believe in science. Not sure what you plan to do about that.
Comment by mtraven — June 26, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Hi mtraven:
So the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science has abandoned science in order to label religious parents as child abusers.
Actually, the search string "˜child abuse' turns up 18,931 hits on PubMed. Here's one that was just published in the Am J Prev Med: "The relationship between child abuse and adult obesity among california women."
Oh, and BTW, here's one about religion from the J Nerv Ment Dis. 2006 Dec;194(12):971-4.
Comment by MikeGene — June 27, 2007 @ 12:26 am
June 27th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Hi TP,
Challenge to do what?
I'm not playing your game. You know I showed you respect and hospitality and you know how you have returned that favor.
Yet you hypocritically demand that I embrace it without researching/thinking about it on my own. Do you think it is ethical to make such demands after preaching about independent thinking for all these months? While you chatter and chirp about "thinking on your own," I quietly and patiently practice it.
I don't care about your motives. It's your group-thinking-wedge-centrism that stinks. Sorry TP, but there are lots of reasons for not embracing your model other than a desire to make sure ID functions as a prop for belief in God. But you cannot even fathom them, can you "thought provoker?"
I have long said that I do not think ID is science and you know that. So what game are you playing? You think you are doing science by writing up postings for the comments section of an ID blog? Really? How do you define science, "thought provoker?"
There you go again. Where did I say or imply that I wanted you to leave? You've tried this wannabe-martyr routine before (or was it some other dime-a-dozen critic; I can't tell much these days as y'all tend to sound the same from where I sit). Stay as long as you want. Talk as much as you want. I'm just pointing out that you are dime-a-dozen after-all.
Oh, and what "convictions" am I supposed to be facing?
Comment by MikeGene — June 27, 2007 @ 1:02 am
June 27th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Do you think that every word that comes out of Dawkins' mouth has to be "science" If he says "please pass the milk" or "that's a lovely sunset" has he "abandoned" science?
Agh, the stupid, it burns!
Once you have defined child abuse, you can perform scientific experiments to find out what else is correlated with it. But science does not determine what constitutes child abuse. Duh. Of course, you can use science (statistics, really) to demonstrate that factor x causes a specific harm y, so if you could show that religion (or whatever) led to higher rates of tooth decay, psychosis, and hemorrhoids you could use that as evidence to argue that religion (or whatever) constituted abuse. But that's not what the paper you cited is doing, and it isn't what Dawkins is doing either.
Comment by mtraven — June 27, 2007 @ 1:13 am
June 27th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Hi mtraven,
No, but I would think when writing a book that addresses the topic of religion and child abuse, a Professor for the Public Understanding of Science would familiarize himself with the science that has studied the effects of religious belief and the science that has studied the effects of child abuse. Instead of drawing from this scientific research, the scientist provides anecdotes and armchair philosophy, thus abandoning science to make his points. Why is that?
Ah yes, the arrogance of a DawkinsFan.
I didn't say that science defines child abuse. I pointed out there is a massive body of scientific literature that studies child abuse from many angles, including its relation with religion (note how you closed your eyes to the study I provided). Apparently, Dawkins wants to redefine child abuse to include religion by refusing to be informed by this research.
Comment by MikeGene — June 27, 2007 @ 1:37 am
June 27th, 2007 at 2:05 am
The paper you cited was stupendously irrelevant. One of its results was a weak suggestion that religion could help people cope with child abuse. Duh. I have no problem believing in that. It doesn't say anything about whether religion constitutes child abuse or not.
Let's say science shows that religious belief makes people happier, healthier, and just all-round better human beings. All of that is also stupendously irrelevant to the issues that this blog is allegedly about, which is whether religion (excuse me, ID) is true. It's obvious to anybody that religion has some sort of adaptive value, or it wouldn't be as prevalent as it is, but that doesn't make it true.
Comment by mtraven — June 27, 2007 @ 2:05 am
June 27th, 2007 at 7:40 am
What is the adaptive value of child abuse?
Comment by WedgeHead — June 27, 2007 @ 7:40 am
June 27th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Bradford,
You are straw-manning the Wedge strategy. It is not that the wedge strategy is a credible assertion of power. You are correct that neither Wells (nor Dembski nor Behe) have "power." What the wedge document represents is deceitfulness and incompetence. The power of the wedge strategy is not what it threatens to accomplish; it is the destructive power it unleashed upon ID. (To be more accurate, it is the fact that it was a secret strategy, at odds with public pronouncements, that was, in the final analysis, destructive.) Making one's self an easy target through sheer stupidity is no way to win a war.
Mtraven,
Precisely. If it were scientific, then it would be a testable claim. But, like all of Dawkins's dabbling outside the pure science realm that I'm aware of, it's pseudo-intellectual crap. Quite simply, outside the domain of science, Dawkins has not written or done anything of substance. If it weren't for his scientific reputation, he'd get no hearing at all. Asserting that a religious upbringing is a form of child abuse is just that: (as you point out) a scientifically baseless claim from a little napoleon.
Comment by David Heddle — June 27, 2007 @ 8:40 am
June 27th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Hi Mike,
To think. To question. To explore other possibilities.
I have treated you as I would like to be treated.
I haven't demanded anything as far as I am aware. I have made a request. To make sure the limits of my request are clear, all I am requesting is for you to indicate whether or not this model meets the definition of an ID Front Loading hypothesis regardless of your opinion on its validity.
I may have gotten carried away when Joy said "ID can embrace anyone who cares to stand with them…". So, in a spirit of friendly poking, I asked you about it. I actually was in a good mood last night.
Considering a significant fraction of the 258 comments in the recent thread were attempting to poke holes in the hypothesis, yes I can think of quite a few reasons. I wish even more people were expressing their provoked thoughts on the matter.
I define science as any activity that contributes to the pursuit of knowledge.
Yes, I am aware that our definitions probably don't match. I also distinguish between the "pursuit of knowledge" and the "pursuit of Truth". Which gets wrapped up in the NOMA/OMA discussions.
I offered to leave after my first post (I attempted to e-mail you directly). It is a standing offer.
The convictions spelled out in the Blog's About Us…
We are a group of individuals, coming from diverse backgrounds and not speaking for any organization, who have found common ground around teleological concepts, including intelligent design. We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 27, 2007 @ 8:49 am
June 27th, 2007 at 9:05 am
I'll echo that Wedgehead. Dr. Wells has no power. His influence is slight. The power lies with mainstream evolutionists. They control the money, the schools, national and international science organizations and for the most part government policies in the USA and abroad.
Four million dollars is a drop in the bucket. Academia is dominated by those who have more in common with PZ than Wells and collective higher education budgets dwarf that of the DI. But watch out for those fundies. There's a conspiracy lurking round every corner.
Comment by Bradford — June 27, 2007 @ 9:05 am
June 27th, 2007 at 9:08 am
I'll echo that Wedgehead. Dr. Wells has no power. His influence is slight. The power lies with mainstream evolutionists. They control the money, the schools, national and international science organizations and for the most part government policies in the USA and abroad. So why the pretense about a powerful Wedge conspiracy?
David Heddle:
You're right but I did not create the strawman. If you review the comments made it is apparently the sincere conviction of some that the Wedge represents a real power threat.
Comment by Bradford — June 27, 2007 @ 9:08 am
June 27th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Bradford,
On that we can agree. The anti-ID crowd includes a lunatic John-Birch-like component that seems to believe that theonomy is a real threat in the US.
Comment by David Heddle — June 27, 2007 @ 9:17 am
June 27th, 2007 at 9:32 am
I would hardly consder Bill Gates a crazed theocratic billionaire. Oh, I bet you didn't realize the DI is also funded by Bill and Melinda Gates and not just Howard Ahmanson. And by the way only 800k of the 4 million is toward the Center for Science and Culture and only a fraction of that is toward ID. The largst DI center is Cascadia not Science and Culture.
Ahmanson is not a crazed theocrat, that is a fabrication by Barbara Forrest.
FYI yourself. I wouldn't be going around accusing people of being morons in light of your mistatement of facts which evidently proceed from the typical Darwinbot mantras you so uncritically swallow.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 27, 2007 @ 9:32 am
June 27th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
TP:
Hameroff's been working on a model of consciousness using the biological structures affected by anesthetics (the suspension of consciousness) since the 1970s. His biological research into the nature, functions and activities of microtubules was helped along by Tuszynski's parallel biophysical examination of the same phenomena. Penrose has been working on a physical model of reality (that he'd hoped would avoid appeals to infinite alternative universes and dimensions) since the 1980s at least. His first book to the subject that links his model to consciousness [The Emperor's New Mind] was published in 1989. Then he met Hameroff, and the rest is history…
To tell you the truth, "your" model doesn't look very different from theirs. And the retrocausality angle has been tackled by several astrophysicists in their popular books as well, including Paul Davies (you'll see one of his books, The Fifth Miracle advertised on the right-hand column of TT's pages). The physics of reality large and small has been the "Chief of Sciences" for a lot longer than biologists have been worshipping the ghost of Charlie Darwin. And biologists have been ignoring and belittling the suggestions of physicists related to life and evolution for as long as physicists have been making suggestions. Why, they're almost as derided by the orthodoxen as philosophers of science are!
So it's neither your model nor mine, it's something that has existed below biology's radar for decades now. Developing steadily and quietly (in comparison to the dueling metaphysics wars) in response to a serious crisis in physics that has not resulted in the attempt to impose a dogma. Physics does not censor the kind of speculative new ideas that might someday solve its unitary crisis. But physics isn't so corrupted with metaphysics as evolutionary biology is.
That the evidence and the thinking appeals to you is great. It's been nice to have someone from the 'other side' finally begin to take notice of what has been known for quite awhile now. But you'll have no more success selling this model to the orthodoxen (or the politicians disguised as scientists and science-defenders) than anyone else has had. Whether you call it your own or go ahead and drop the names of those who have worked so hard for so many years to scientifically develop it. They're not buying, and will never buy. This is one of those advances in science that must await a change of guard - the old turf warriors have to retire or die off before the young bucks will be heard.
Which, as I've mentioned, has nothing at all to do with what's real, or the best scientific theory [FAPP] of what is real. It's just dueling metaphysics.
Since I have been participating in these dueling metaphysics games, offering my social and political opinions and occasionally lobbing some physical reality into the stewpot, I have encountered many supporters who are not fundamentalist Christians of the YEC or even DI variety. Liberal and reformed Christians, deists, UUs, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, New Agers, pantheists, panentheists, even atheists. Just a general demographic representing the variety of metaphysical beliefs that are NOT metaphysical materialism/physicalism. Some of them know some science, and recognize the weaknesses of the NDS.
Actually, history shows that Darwinism in all its forms has met with in-house dissent from the moment of its inception upon publication of Origin… in 1859. This dissent has been kept below public radar as much as possible, but it's well documented for anyone who cares to do the work of seeking. Biology's embrace was metaphysically motivated from the beginning. Nothing has changed in that respect in the century and a half since.
There are not many physicists in the ID ranks willing to promote the model you and I like best, because there is still resistance to the idea for metaphysical reasons in physics too. They mostly prefer infinite universes and dimensions (a grotesque violation of Occam) to the idea that consciousness may be a fundamental parameter of reality. They just don't censor publications or ruin the careers of those who do wish to explore these angles. For all the dismissal of Penrose's model by the multiversers, there's really not a lot they can do to him - he earned his authority the hard way. So they have to let him speculate.
I'd urge patience. The evidence will win out in the end and doesn't need us to make that happen. We can just be whispers in the wind, keep the ideas intruding here and there. We have no need to convert IDers to one way of thinking (there are biological angles - like front-loading - that have a better chance of denting orthodoxy), so why do you think that's necessary? Nothing ID supporters or ID models/ideas can ever offer to the Neodarwinian die-hards will change their minds or prevent them from trying to use the law to prevent the inevitable from happening.
As for the dueling metaphysics, that's a perennial pastime for humans. Best to let it be, now that we've advanced enough to talk about it in the open without burning people at the stake.
It's all okay. What's real is real regardless of what any of us thinks about it. Honest.
Comment by Joy — June 27, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Hi Joy,
As usual I agree with most of what you said. And again, our differences are in where we see the possible threats coming from. The fact that I have arrived late to the ID and the Penrose/Hameroff parties only aggravates my concern.
I think you would agree science in general is probably heading for a rude awakening. The multiverse answer to the quantum mysteries is a stalling tactic. It is an attempt to hold off an unacceptable realization that either non-locality or retrocausality is real. Unfortunately, the stalling tactic is causing the equivalent of a strain buildup. Once it goes, the shock will be impressive.
Now, you may trust that the ID Movement leaders won't be able to take advantage of this situation, but I don't. As you have pointed out, this stuff isn't new. How long have you known about this? Before your ARN days? I found the following quote attributed to someone named "Joy" in early 2003. "Yes, I think it's entirely evident that simplistic RM-NS Darwinism is wrong. A lot of scientists active in the fields have been aware of this for awhile."
I may not be as smart as I think I am, but I'm not so arrogant that I don't realize others can understand this. How many other people (including ID proponents) understand the significance of Penrose/Hameroff, but won't acknowledge it for political reasons?
If I can't convince a rational and reasonable ID proponent like MikeGene to even acknowledge this hypothesis to be on an equal footing with things like YEC, then I get concerned. The concern is that if and when the shock happens, the ID Movement leaders will aggravate the situation by trying to grab the reigns of science during the confusion. They might even have a chance of succeeding with the backing of the popular movement they are establishing.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 27, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
.
Hi TP,
Perhaps my memory fails me or more likely I havent read every post in every thread between you and Mike but what I have read doesnt compute with the above. My take is that you have been asking Mike what he thinks of your model and he has responded that he would like to chew on it for awhile I dont recall the YEC business being discussed in the manner which you have presented it.
When I read stuff like this all I can do is roll my eyes :roll:.ID, the Wedge, or anything anti materalistic or Darwinian has gotten its brains kicked in on every front imaginable. Its so bad that anyone with ID leanings or even anti darwinian or materialistic sentiments cannot even get tenure in academia. It is not the ID movement that excommunicates those who question Darwinian orthodoxy or heaven forbid permit a paper friendly to ID to pass peer review. Materialists and materialistic science has a stranglehold startiing with K1 all the way through college and beyond. Sorry I cant take this fear of theocracy, etc, etc seriously nor can I take seriously those who bring up this canard over and over again.
Vivid
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 27, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
TP:
I think you may have Mike Gene confused with a YEC. I don't know where this is coming from, honestly. Biology will fall in pieces, not all at once. They don't know sh*t about physics, and care for it even less. What matters in the ID challenge is what can challenge RM-NS (which, come to think of it, is probably anything more reasonable than RM-NS, which is everything). Front-loading will do just fine. And it doesn't contradict Hameroff-Penrose at all.
…but then, most things don't. Consciousness is an entirely different quest.
Oh, stop with the fear-mongering. Science will be fine, including biology. They'll adjust to whatever the evidence indicates, as they always have. Despite short-term protection rackets and misguided 'orthodoxies'. They die out eventually.
I'm with Vivid on this one.
Comment by Joy — June 27, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Hi Vivid and Joy
You are both right, my YEC reference was inappropriate.
Unfortunately, I have to run.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 27, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hi Vivid,
You wrote…
In my search for Joy's old quote I ran across your name too. How long have you two been at this?
I am relatively new and not privy to whatever happened at ARN or why TT's About Us has the tone it does. However, I have a good imagination.
For some probing questions. What happened to EAM (Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis)?
There are a lot of very smart ID proponents. Why aren't there better ID hypotheses presented?
Rather than conjecture any more. I will point out the obvious and wait for the reaction. In a realitively short period of time I have pieced together an ID model that forces the "other side" to argue from increduality. You guys have been at it for years. Why isn't there more to show for it?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 27, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Front loading is not a hypotheses?
.
What other side are you referring to?
Perhaps you can explain what you mean? What to you needs to be shown?
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 27, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Sorry TP you did not say front loading is not an hypothesis. Why is your hypothesis better than front loading?